Bishop Hill Scientists: "poor must cough up"
Mar 11, 2013 Bureaucrats The scientific establishment is in full voice this morning, with a letter in the Telegraph demanding yet more money from the hard-pressed taxpayer.
We urge the Government to demonstrate its long-term commitment to funding science and engineering as part of a strategy to boost growth and enable Britain to meet the social and technological challenges of the 21st century.
In 2010, the core research budget disbursed by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) was ring-fenced. However, the overall science budget has since been eroded by cuts in capital expenditure by BIS and to research and development in other departments, combined with the depreciating effect of inflation.
Of course, as we know, the causal links between economic growth and public spending on science are far from demonstrated - as Pielke Jr notes claims that such a link has been demonstrated are largely faith-based. In reality, the letter represents just another case of rent-seeking behaviour in the bureaucracy.
Having worked in manufacturing industry, I am aware of just how hard life is for those on the shop floor and how hard it will be in retirement. But it is these people who will be footing the bill for any new flow of funds to the scientific community. The scientific bigwigs who appended their names to this letter would have done well to consider the morality of their demands before they did so.
Their special pleading leaves a sour taste.
Reader Comments (55)
Why has the out-of-academia science celebrity Simon Singh been allowed to add his name to the list?
Someone who seems to have not much else to do than being a busybody going around harassing alt med popularizers.
Here in the USA, the new Obamacare law basically demands that every person pay rent on his/her body, or be fined (fined into extinction, perhaps, if you are as poor as me, and will not apply to the state to pay for you). It is clear, insane tyranny, presented as a universal "right"--no one seems to be making the prime point that healthcare is a business, not a human right, that for the poor in particular the system is largely broken, and you can't fix it by simply requiring everyone to join it (with money they don't have). I can't see anyone in my position obeying the law, since the old adage, "you can't get blood out of a stone" applies. But with the Insane Left in charge, and incompetence rampant in the world--Left and Right--no one is making much real sense now.
I have some sympathy with the view expressed by Geim in a piece linked to by Pielke's blog:
"For a lay person, blue-sky research can appear a waste of money as it does not immediately provide the modern equivalents of bread and circuses. Taking a longer view, however, there is no such thing as useless fundamental knowledge. The silicon revolution would have been impossible without quantum physics. Abstract maths allows internet security and computers not to crash every second. Einstein’s theory of relativity might seem irrelevant but your satellite navigation system would not work without it. The chain from basic discoveries to consumer products is long, obscure and slow – but destroy the basics and the whole chain will collapse."
I get the feeling that they are simply not prepared to do anything to help this country balance its books when all the rest of us are taking the hit. I have recently returned to university as a mature student (not science related) and have been amused and then irritated by the strong left political views, not least the animosity towards Thatcher in particular (who probably a large number of lecturers can't even remember, being so young) and the conservatives in general. I'm still not sure what they think of the LibDems as all woes are the fault of the conservatives, apparently. Given the amount of EU funding these universities are also receiving, I wonder what percentage comes from our own Government and exactly what overall reduction in their budgets this represents?
I think all universities are struggling to attract undergraduates now that the fees have gone up and the number of applicants has gone down and they are loathe to make the sort of cutbacks that local authorities are having to address. I would love to be a fly on the wall at some faculty meetings when all these lefties get together to discuss their financial position. Heads in the sand springs to mind.
I can't help feeling there's something very misguided and cart before the horse with this, apart from smacking of a sense of entitlement and special pleading.
The reasons that physics departments have been closing and engineering has been something of a despised profession isn't that departments have been underfunded. It goes back decades and is to do with changes to the economy, such as moving away from manufacturing.
The answer lies far deeper than what they are proposing.
I grew up with a father who was a physicist and a strong defender of basic research, whether or not the benefits were immediately obvious. Ironically, his best work was nor specifically funded at all, until well after it was already obviously useful.
"All professions are a conspiracy against the laiety" someone said; and the constant special pleading of discrete professions constantly reminds me of this. I'm just watching a television debate on funding of education in Australian schools. Full of motherhood statements, but having worked in schools I know that extra funding is quickly diffused into enhanced teacher conditions. Then the bleating starts again. All explained by the short quote above.
Good of Pielke Jr to pick up on the corruption of the meaning of basic research, which initially meant 'essential, needed immediately and therefore worth funding', but over time has become 'no use whatsoever to the economy or any part thereof, therefore needs public funding'. As I recall, this became de facto policy in the 1980s, since if research is useful, then industry will (of course) pick up the tab. Blair's government finished the job in my field - no applied research funded by government now, even though the industry in question is very fragmented an no single part of it can make a useful contribution, and if it did it would of course be for private gain rather than public good.
Are there any applied scientists in the Telegraph 53, or are they all officially useless to the economy?
cosmic
I think it goes back further than that too. The standards of education have been slipping for years and the emphasis has been to increase the number of students obtaining a degree which has shifted the emphasis from the harder disciplines to the softer options. As a not particular bright person, I am still mystified by the poor education of some of the graduates on my course - grammar and spelling in particular - and their speech which often carries multiple use of the word 'like' scattered through each and every sentence. I would hope that this could be trained out of them when they eventually hit the workplace.
Geoff Cruickshank.
Your comment about "enhanced teacher conditions" reminded me of something I read in our (French) local paper at the weekend.
Up until 2008 the education system was based on a 4½-day week (Saturday morning lessons and Wednesday off) when it switched to a 4-day week (no Saturdays and longer hours on the other four days). The plan is now to switch back to 4½ days by reducing the Wednesday day off to half-a-day.
Needless to say, the teaching unions think this change entitles them to more money. The president of our local Conseil General has taken a somewhat robust view of this commenting that he hadn't noticed them getting paid any less when the week was reduced five years ago so there was no reason to get paid any more now!
Brilliant. As is the commentary that follows. BH for PM.
I know just what you mean. Every time I see it I am kind of like: "Oh no!". :)
If someone could demostrate how much money is going into climate research, mitigation, "sustainable" energy, climate-related lobbying, NGOs, climate conferences, financing activist organisations, the UN including UNFCCC, IPCC etc then we could show them that there is enough money already available. It just needs allocating to something worthwhile.
In fact, I know just the man. I wonder if Lord Lawson is busy this week?
At some point we need to get a grip on this tax thing. The people who inflict it need to be aware that if they keep spending it on things we do not want then we will get very cross ...
... and they won't like us when we are cross.
The extortion funded sector has a terrible record of RoI. The taxpayers are a much better picker of winners when it comes to investing, so don't take the money from them in the first place (plus it will create real employment).
Q: "I have some sympathy with the view expressed by Geim..."
I agree that many of the wonders of the modern world -- e.g. semiconductors, GPS, etc. -- owes its roots to basic discoveries such as quantum mechanics and relativity. But here's the syllogism being presented:
[Some] Basic research is valuable.
Gov't should increase value of its citizens.
Ergo, Gov't should underwrite basic research.
Beside suffering from an undistributed middle, this argument can be used to support pretty much any positive human endeavour, mutatis mutandis. It is a prescription for unlimited government economic power, which as we've seen, leads to corruption and mis-allocation of resources whether in the form of communism, fascism, or "crony capitalism."
[I might also add that relativity and quantum physics developed largely without government sponsorship, as might be said of automobiles, airplanes, telephony, etc. It is true that not all government spending on basic research (or elsewhere) is waste; there have definitely been valuable techniques/results produced. But it is a fallacy to infer that they would not have been generated without government sponsorship.]
We must look to political philosophy to establish limits to government influence. All parties seeking government sponsorship will say, "my activity is worthy of state support." Many such activities are indeed worthy of being pursued, but are outside the realm of proper government function.
When the scientists on this list can point to concrete steps they and their organizations have taken to ensure that the scientific method is actually followed & that all climate data is open to scrutiny perhaps then we can begin to have a conversation about additional funding.
Hey, folks on the Hill, chill out! Just pretend the money is going to pay for more fancy guns and war-planes and missiles and submarines and aircraft carriers and tanks and soldiers and all your favourite tax-payer funded toys. That will give you a warm glow of patriotic pride and you'll soon forget who pays for it.
Business is smarter than government. Technology businesses frequently had their own research labs. Very expensive. So they gave the government a bit of money. And now their research gets done at universities, with just a modest contribution from business. Similarly businesses whine about the quality of graduates available. Perish the thought they should train staff themselves, or cough up for bursaries. In the modern world, government is the thick fat kid in the playground with funny clothes who everybody else takes the p*ss out of. Curiously the thick fat kid thinks all the p*ss-takers are his pals.
Plenty of money going to climate "science", how about using some of that?
"Just pretend the money is going to pay for more fancy guns and war-planes and missiles and submarines and aircraft carriers and tanks and soldiers and all your favourite tax-payer funded toys. That will give you a warm glow of patriotic pride and you'll soon forget who pays for it."
In six terrible years of strife Britain gave the world the gas turbine engine, the cavity magnetron and nuclear power. In 30 years of peace and brotherly love what did we get? - The Climate Change Act.
(Apologies to Harry Lime)
Seroiusly, if we encourage and invest in new and promising technologies - and HMG takes a "golden share" in the investement - we can all prosper from the "winners".
I must feel inclined to ask them what scientific research they are personally investing their money into?
BitBucket -
They're not *my* favourite toys. While I accept the legitimacy of the function of the armed forces, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that much of it is not cost-effective, and for much the same reasons. [Namely, interested parties lobbying the government; and bureaucracy seeking to expand its scope.] I'd be happy to see that budget reduced as well -- providing that the savings weren't immediately spent on alternative "good causes".
Quite. And doesn't that wanton, illegitimate tarring of the very diverse set of climate dissenters with the same brush just show the poverty of the rest of the argument.
Roger Longstaff, I'm not sure whether you are seriously saying that there was no publicly funded scientific progress of benefit to us all after the war or whether that was a joke. If you were serious I think you are wrong. Even during the war, my guess is that the things you mention were publicly funded. And much research into that favourite of this site, fracking of unconventional gas, was publicly funded. AM's highlighting of this subject and the subsequent support from his fan-boys leads me to think that like the Republicans and the Religious Right in America, he and many others on this site really are anti-science in general, not just against climate-science.
Richard, you tar yourself with that brush by, as a vocal part of this site, allowing nonsense to pass unchallenged despite the fact that it almost certainly goes against your own views (assuming you really are on the left). I don't believe any contributors to the Hill from the left can agree with the thrust of this thread, or much else that is written by the conservatives here, but you hold your tongue instead of correcting what I'm sure you consider wrong. That seems dishonourable and must be very uncomfortable.
Sometimes government sponsored research in entrepreneurial hands actually leads directly to consumer relevant technology industries. Much of the lab equipment I saw from the late 50's onward in Stanford University's electronic labs (main fountainhead of Silicon Valley) carried the labels: "Property of the Dept. of the Navy: Contract #xxxx".
Sometimes it does not. The development of the north American high definition television system was intended to preserve electronic component manufacturing capability in the US. Now we have investigations in to dubious specs of Chinese sourced semiconductors in US air force planes.
How much heed should be paid to the never quoted parts of Dwight Eisenhower's famous 1961 "military industrial comoplex" farewell speech:
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded."
"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
That was forecasting! Perhaps the last sincere and deeply thought public statement from an American president.
Personally, I've long felt that public spending on basic research is a reasonable idea, but there's several problems.
One is that it's difficult to measure ROI, because there's really three kinds of basic research: that which produces in fairly short order economically viable commercial products, that which goes nowhere, or which meanders around for a decade or two before showing up in an altogether unintended application, and that which when seen through traditional economic measures is disastrous, but which for reasons of policy is regarded as worth whatever it costs (e.g. the atom bomb)
The second is that the definition of 'science' has too often been corrupted by the activists, for whom it has become less a means of human advancement and more a means of political control.
BB, you are correct that my post was (at least partially) a joke - as was your original post?
However, my dig at "climate science" was not. Pure research is to be ecouraged (to be chosen highly selectively, within public funding limits) and applied research is essential and in the national interest. However what is beyond the pale is advocacy based research.
Many years ago I worked in the Scientific Civil Service at the MOD, in a mixed civil / military department. One day the boss asked my colleague (a RAF officer) to write a paper on something or other. His response was "yes sir, for or against?"
You can tell the scientists are rent seeking, not interested in "basic research" when they fail to distinguish between the various sciences.
If we want return on investment, we would fund engineering and computer science departments the best of all. Then would be the hard sciences. Maths would be lavishly funded, but only for the very best minds (so hardly costing anything then). Silly soft sciences would get a bit, but only to keep our hand in.
But we don't fund that way, because engineering and computer science are not presitigious. And the scientists are motivated by prestige, just like everyone else. They like to do the cool, sexy "blue sky" stuff, because that's where the best minds are, regardless of their actual ability.
Fine, except when they want us to fund them, pretending that the reason is "basic research" is vital to the economy.
What about all those geologists investigating shale gas?
Mar 11, 2013 at 5:42 PM | BitBucket
Bit, I fid it odd that you think anyone has some responsibility to challenge anything and everything they might disagree with, either here or in any other context. My own complicated views are often in conflict with others of right, left, center, and whatever..... So if I sought to follow your advice to Richard I could spend 20 hours per day on BH or any number of other sites.
I take no responsibility for anyone's words but my own (yes, even as a pseudonym). I don't presume that every thread needs an emphatic comment anytime I disagree with anyone. I comment on what catches my interest....
P.s. Some may argue that the kind of view I am mentioning here gives an easy out to every scientist, policy maker, etc. who does not speak out against every bad paper, incorrect comment, etc. whether from Michael Mann or anyone else. However, greater responsibilities may be assumed, either implicitly or explicitly, when people accept public funding, commit to contributing to policy advisory bodies such as the IPCC or NAS, etc. There can be all kinds of greater responsibilities to speak and object, etc. than the very minimal responsibility assumed by any blog commentator (the latter commit only to represent one's own views and understandings as well and honestly as possible, when and where one CHOOSES).
P.p.s. Unlike some I actually enjoy and value your participation here! II don't need to agree with what someone says every time to find it worthy of reflection, further reading, etc.
The Scientific Establisment have much to answer, Corruption, Chicken Little Scares BUT most importantly almost no progress, Every move by Government and the Perfumed Professor Princes of the Research Council's Quango system have reduced progress and mis-directed investment.
Nowhere is this more clear than in Physics, Energy Technology and Medicin. No Fusion, Climate Scam, New Antibiotics and Antivirals, no generic progress on Cancer eg provoking an immune response.
Yet another gross failure of elitist central planning.
MFG, omb
No increase in taxpayer funding is necessary. Stop funding subjects with 'science' in the title and reallocate the funds to the others. Physics, chemistry, biology, geology and engineering all gain. Rent-seeking climate scientists stop draining the pool. Win-win!
@R2
The problem with all government sponsored research is that it is government sponsored. As we know scientific knowledge in politics is limited and thinly spread. It is a truism that governments can't pick winners.
I don't have a clue how to emulate what he has done but I reckon James Dyson must be a modern day Edison. His (Dysons) list of inventions is quite impressive
Sea Truck (as used by the Egyptian Military)
Ballbarrow
Trolleyball
Wheelboat
G-Force Vacuum Cleaner
Bladeless Fan
Airblade Hand Drier
I don't know about the other but the G-Force was a trial and error development with over 5000 prototypes and no government involvement.
Some things take a long time to come to fruition, Liquid Crystals were discovered in 1888 and it wasn't until the 1960s that LCD technology was developed and there applications to use it. I'm not sure if this was a commercial blue sky research programme or military funded.
So I'm with you on Physics, chemistry, biology, geology and engineering all gain. The money saved on all other research, which is raised by taxes which could then be reduced or used to encourage businesses to carry out R&D in the UK.
Skiphil, I don't think I suggested a general responsibility. But Richard objects to being tarred with the same brush applied to the righteous right (that of being against any government support for anything unless it happens to be for their favourite boondoggles). For that objection to be taken seriously I think he does have a responsibility to differentiate himself. If he fails to do so he should just accept the tarring instead of bleating. Interesting that you feel a broad (or is it narrow?) responsibility is suddenly acquired when taking public funds. How far do you think it extends? The climate sciences cover a broad spectrum of research. Does someone researching clouds have a responsibility to comment on what is said by tree-ring researchers, or a vulcanologist on changes in the range of insects and birds, or a polar researcher on weather patters in the tropics? Gets silly doesn't it...
BTW, thanks for your nice comment.
SandyS, R2, so you want research into physics, chemistry, biology, geology and engineering (did you forget medicine or is that worthless?). Those are broad categories - tell us which areas of scientific research don't fit under those broad headings? Oceanography and meteorology perhaps - obviously worthless too, but they contain a lot of physics, chemistry and biology. Astronomy? There's lots of physics in that. Computer science? Truly worthless of course. Maths? Underlies everything, but probably worthless in your eyes. Seems like you like picking winners too...
I was browsing through the Global Warming Policy Foundation accounts for 31st July 2012.
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends48/0001131448_AC_20120731_E_C.pdf
The GWPF received £420,000 in donations.
It spent £ 242,000.
Of that, "an average of" (?) four employees absorbed 142,000 in wages and salaries. That is £35,000 each.
The other £180,000 is described as cash in hand.
Clearly climate scepticism can be lucrative.
PS . To be fair, all Lord Lawson received as a trustee was £732 expenses.
"Having worked in manufacturing industry, I am aware of just how hard life is for those on the shop floor and how hard it will be in retirement. But it is these people who will be footing the bill for any new flow of funds to the scientific community. The scientific bigwigs who appended their names to this letter would have done well to consider the morality of their demands before they did so.
Their special pleading leaves a sour taste."
Bish, I am astounded. You have experience in what Americans call "blue collar" work? I struggled for decades to hide my blue collar background and to unlearn my blue collar manners. Some of my more important moral beliefs remain from blue collar days, such as a belief in the dignity of work. I so envied the late Michael Harrington (The Other America) for his ability to embrace and live on both sides of the divide. Never would I have guessed that you have blue collar experience.
BB
Get the basics right and the rest will follow.
Your question has the answer
Oceanography and meteorology perhaps - obviously worthless too, but they contain a lot of physics, chemistry and biology. Astronomy? There's lots of physics in that. Computer science?
The government (i.e. us as you seem to forget) has limited resources, more taxation kills enterprise you of the holy left seem to forget that all too easily I'm afraid.
EM
£35,000 lucrative?
Better not tell teachers
Starting salary England and Wales (outside London): £21,588 to £31,552,Outer London £25,117 to £35,116; advanced skills teacher minimum £37,461.
Got these at http://www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary/teaching-salary-scales
In case you think I plucked them from thin air. As BB has said I'm quite good with DuckDuckGo!
Entropic man
What about them? They are employed by private industry. WTF does that have to do with taxpayer funding?
Skiphil:
I don't think the phrase in brackets is required by the way. There is equality of responsibility. Thank you for what you say on my behalf. I'm likely to 'go dark' again soon, making few contributions to BH and other climate blogs. That essential freedom not even to read stuff surely makes a mockery of the implied moral imperative to make clear publicly where we differ with any contributor on any blog to which we have ever posted. Common sense - but sometimes to have it underlined is a big favour. Thanks.
SandyS, yes my question contained my answer, but not yours. You suggest that support for "physics, chemistry, biology, geology and engineering". So which sciences do you reject for funding because they are not under this broad umbrella - medicine, maths and computing obviously, but what else?
BB,
I think you misconstued my answer, but to dot the i's and cross the ts.
We're (at least I am) talking government sponsored research then Physics, chemistry, biology, geology and engineering (civil and mechanical). IBM/Fujistu/Dell/Toshiba and Microsoft/Google can pay for computer research, Samsung/LG/Toshiba can pay for semiconductor research, Toyota/Honda/Nissan can pay for engine and drive technology research, HSBC/BNP Paribas/Barclays Bank PLC can pay for mathematics research, Rolls Royce/Pratt & Whitney can pay for jet engine research, Boeing/Airbus/Northrop Grumman can pay for aeronautical research, Pfizer/Roche/GlaxoSmithKline can pay for pharmaseutical research. BP/Royal Dutch Shell should pay for geological research not covered by the core, Fujitsu/Intel/TI/AMD/Samsung should pay for Physics and Chemistry research not covered by the core, Balfour Beattie/Vinci/Costain/Cofiroute/MacAlpine should pay for construction engineering research
There are other commercial enterprises and other fields of research, but even you should get the idea. The above fields and companies are what I can think of late in the evening appologies to any companies and fields of human activity excluded.
If I purchase goods and services from these companies then, by choice, I pay for this research with money I've earned and chosen to send. Or I may save it in a investment fund which invests in these companies and their research. Governments, particularly those of the holy left think they know what is good for us and how we should spend the money we've earned by endeavour and application.
BB
Sorry
"chosen to spend"
although I could send it electronically using a system developed and researched by PayPal I suppose :)
Next time you go through Cambridge, look around at the science and technology companies springing up all over. These are taking blue-sky research from the University and turning it into commercial products to be made by the " man on the shop floor".
The return on the government's investment in research is considerable; in business profits, jobs and taxes.
Sandy, I imagine the companies you listed do indeed support research in the areas you mentioned, either in-house or by universities. But I expect they will do this to the extent that it helps their business and not for the greater good. I'm sure that leaves countless areas uncovered - should we leave them unresearched? My guess is that you and AM won't get much support for such a proposition from the ranks of scientists that you pride yourselves on visiting this website - many (most?) probably got their PhD and other badges as a result of publicly supported research in the UK's universities. Without that public support there would be no great UK universities. This line of attack by sceptics is just stupid and shines a very unfavourable light on AM. What is it they say about accountants? They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing?
BTW, I am not of the "left". Not even remotely!
@EM
Any references for Profit/Loss on government (i.e. our) investment? How do you that all that research was government funded, private business fund a great deal of University research?
Being an ex-Resident of Derby I used to see the fruits of Work by Rolls-Royce (admittedly bailed out by Tony Benn) and Toyota and to a lesser extent Bombardier. All spend large amounts on R&D, unfortunately much of the R&D is done outside the UK, in Japan and Canada for instance.
How do you know
@BB
What is the greater good? Do politicians have a better idea than businessmen on what should be researched? Is it because of political influence that huge amounts of time, money and endeavour have been spent researching Global Warming/Climate Change/Extreme Weather/Polar Bear Extinction that could have been spent better researching other things by companies selling stuff (goods,services,ideas etc.)? Politicians like to outdo each other and have very blinkered vision; here in the UK the two main bits of holy ground are the NHS and environment do you think such a tight focus is a good thing? As one example have we wasted millions on the MO when Piers Corbyn and his laptop forecasting seem just as accurate if not actually more accurate for the longer range (1 or 2 months out)?
I know we'll disagree on whether the answer is yes or no,
I presume then you are part of the woolly liberal centre as you're obviously not of the Righteous Right?
Sandy, I was under the impression that public research money is doled out by the research councils, not the Gov directly, in which case Gov is not choosing. Is that wrong? Also I had understood that one of the many colours in the sceptic kaleidoscope (maybe only a minor hue - there are so many) is expressed as that the situation vis-a-vis the climate is unproven and that more research to determine the truth should precede the spending of large amounts on mitigation/avoidance. I'm not aware that anyone takes the sincerity of this view seriously, but the view clearly isn't compatible with attacking research spending.
The NHS, since you mention it, needs root and branch reform; but like many things, that means removing the vested interests and the ideologues and discussing sensible solutions across parties. That is not something the UK is good at. On the Met Office, that is a sceptic preoccupation, about which I and the rest of the UK population don't give a flying frack.
On woolly liberals, not really. I just dislike moralisers, xenophobes, homophobes, the religion-motivated and the anti-scientists and ideologues. Many of these are to be found on the political extremes, particularly (but not exclusively) on the right.
@BB,
Does it make a difference who hands out taxes raised by the Government from the people, he who pays the piper calls the tune. To say that government appointed quangos are not going to follow the the party line is pushing credibility to the limit. I'm sure you're not that naive..
It is my belief, based on no research whatsoever that scepticism is not limited exclusively to those on the "right" but is a broad church. Also I think that most, again I have nothing to back this up, don't want more research but better research and freely available data and methods so that what is claimed can be tested by others. It would seem that in the current situation all we get, however much money is thrown at it, is more of the same. Anyone with a knowledge of the history of science knows that there is a swathe of discarded theories on all topics, to think that the current theories on climate are fixed in stone or even vaguely correct is hubris. I won't list the examples of failed theories I'm sure you can think of just as many as I can.
I'd be quite happy for Mann, Hansen, Jones, Trenbirth, Schmidt et al to research from now until doomsday but, although I'm not a US taxpayer and they are predominantly in the US, I don't see my tax £/$/€ should be spent that way. If they can get a Soros or a Goldsmith to fund it it then fine, and they can keep their data and code private.
If some private research group comes up with a zero carbon electricity generation system that works 24 hours a day all day every year and costs the same or less than traditional methods then great. However I am afraid it's a long way away.
SandyS
http://scienceprogress.org/2012/12/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/261220/2/research-rcuk.pdf
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/spend04_sciencedoc_annexes_090704.pdf
Your turn.